2014 – 069 The European Arrest Warrant.

Please forward this blog on to all your email contacts.
From: Idris Francis < To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 November 2014, 23:52
Subject: You could be extradited to the EU for XENOPHOBIA!!!!

This means that if you criticise to EU in the UK you can be arrested and extradited on a EAW to the EU for something that is not a crime (criticising the EU) in the UK. Held in custody without being charged for up to 2 years and without informing your relatives where you are.

We might be placated by the “double criminality rule” which basically states that the crime for which the issuing state requests extradition must also be a crime in the executing state.

Except that, for certain serious crimes, this doesn’t apply. My own highlighting in the extract below from http://europa.eu/legislation_s…

“If they are punishable in the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence of at least three years, the following offences, among others, may give rise to surrender without verification of the double criminality of the act: terrorism, trafficking in human beings, corruption, participation in a criminal organisation, counterfeiting currency, murder, racism and xenophobia , rape, trafficking in stolen vehicles, and fraud, including that affecting the financial interests of the Communities.

For criminal acts other than those mentioned above, surrender may be subject to the condition that the act for which surrender is requested constitutes an offence under the law of the executing Member State (double criminality rule).

The European arrest warrant must contain information on the identity of the person concerned, the issuing judicial authority, the final judgment , the nature of the offence, the penalty, etc. (a specimen form is attached to the framework decision).”

The fact that “racism or xenophobia” is regarded as a suitably serious crime that it need only be defined as such in the issuing member state should be the cause of great alarm for anyone who appreciates just how vague and variable such things can be from one state to another. Would stating the vile truth about islam lead to my extradition to Qatar via a very corruptible judge in Bulgaria, for example?

The “may be subject to..double criminality rule” doesn’t exactly inspire confidence either – why not state “must be subject to “?

What on earth is meant by “final judgement”? Can this really be the case that a judgement is already finalised in order for an EAW to be issued? If it just means that a decision is made to prosecute the case then the wording needs to state precisely this.